All this will get, is people with a 1.8 rating. And again, if people barely rate anyone, and you are saying that if they aren't rated, they are given a "0", then it will partially sway their rating. Because i've played against fantastic players, who surely deserve all 5's, and decided not to. I've played against horrible players who deserve all 1's. But I didn't.

Then, at this point, I guess my question changes to, "Why bother with a rating system at all?" Regardless of your intention, your response is a strong argument for never rating anyone and ignoring those ratings which are given.

temporos wrote:Then, at this point, I guess my question changes to, "Why bother with a rating system at all?" Regardless of your intention, your response is a strong argument for never rating anyone and ignoring those ratings which are given.

I rate every now and then, so i'm not saying it's pointless. If i do see someone with a 4.0 rating, then obviously they aren't fun to play with. But if you start punishing players, all because someone decides not to rate, then there will be more outcries from everyone.

TFO wrote:I rate every now and then, so i'm not saying it's pointless. If i do see someone with a 4.0 rating, then obviously they aren't fun to play with. But if you start punishing players, all because someone decides not to rate, then there will be more outcries from everyone.

But you must admit that this is extremely strange. If some has a 4.0 rating, they are rated "above average". Someone who is rated 4.0 should therefore be above average fun to play with. Which is completely different from not fun to play with at all.

Furthermore, if someone is currently rated 4.8 or 4.9, that player has to be estimated at only average, even though their rating is nearly perfect.

Someone who consistently leaves all 5's in rating does not help the rating system at all, because his ratings do not make a difference between the good and great players. It is impossible with the way the current rating system is used to determine which players are exceptionally fun to play with.

That being said, I'm afraid that this suggestion won't change that. More average ratings given out will lower all players average rating somewhat, but it won't change the problem that most players who DO rate, rate other players consistently maximum.

TheForgivenOne wrote:If i do see someone with a 4.0 rating, then obviously they aren't fun to play with.

Someone who is "above average" is "[obviously not] fun to play with?" This is completely illogical...

TheForgivenOne wrote:But if you start punishing players, all because someone decides not to rate, then there will be more outcries from everyone.

If a player failed to rate a fellow player, the default rating would be like a "0." You're not punishing them, you'd be saying they're no better or worse than most others on the site. That's the whole point to switching to a positive-negative format instead of the 1-5 format.

Current rating system: you can rate 1-5 which will affect the rated player's average, or leave no rating which will not affect his rating. Currently players are giving 4-5 star ratings as the "norm" because they fear upsetting the player they are rating. Some few give ratings of 3 as average. This skews the rating system, making it mostly meaningless, and discouraging people from rating.

Proposed rating system: ratings would be from -2 to +2, and the default would be average -0 - so that if you would not change your rating you would automatically give the 0 rating. If someone is an average player, his average will not change from this. This way players would only have to change the rating when a player really made an impression on them - positive or negative. The average rating would settle near 0, and exceptional players would be easy to spot from their positive ratings, also players with issues would be easy to spot from their negative ones.

This would improve the rating system in many ways: it would make the ratings more meaningful, since you would clearly have either a positive or negative rating. This would encourage people to use the ratings system more, since it wouldn't be perceived as meaningless anymore.

Also it would make leaving ratings easier, since you'd only have to change the rating when you want to give some other rating than average. This would also encourage people to use the rating system, as it would be easier -> thus it wouldn't be seen as much of a chore anymore.

The only downside I can see is that the ratings medal system would need to be changed, and I don't see a good solution for that at the moment...

Nice people rate consistent 5s unless someone is actually not fun to play with/against, and dicks just give out 1s unless they play with friends.

I haven't rated someone in a while now.

This is right on.. I used to be a dick but since changed my ways... I myself do not really see a reason for a rating system too. The stats of game played , win loss percentage and attendance pretty much draw all the conclusions you need. The ratings system gives a reason for someone to discriminate against..

According to the official instructions (which all players should be required to read before participating in their first match), a rating of 3 stars is "average." Any claim to the contrary is in violation of both the Rules and Community Guidelines for the site.

I'm a stickler for rules. They're in-place for a reason. If you disagree with a rule, then change it; don't break it. That's my policy.

When I first started here, one of the first ratings I gave was an average (3) because that is what I honestly felt that person deserved. I was quickly berated with an angry, vulgarity laced, wall post asking why I gave such horrible ratings, and questions as to what my major malfunction was. Soon after, I realized virtually every player on the site had somewhere between 4.2 and 4.9 ratings.

I don't know why it became the norm here to give everyone 5's all the time, but if we give everyone the same score, we are essentially giving no score to anyone. That is why I now very rarely rate anyone - the system is completely broken and useless. I don't know if this would change that, but if the system is to have any value at all it (or the community mentality) needs an overhaul.

As of right now, that number beside your name is completely inconsequential...

Just because having a 4.5-4.9 is the norm now, does not mean it is broken.

Once you play here for a while, you will notice that people tend to be between 4.5-4.9, and anyone below that tends to be a poor player to play with. A lot of people find that, if the person played good enough, they get all 5's. Once you migrate over to -2 - 2, as i said, you're just going to get a lot of people with 1.5-1.9. And i really think that "Not rating gives everyone 0", because that will hinder people's ratings. I've seen players who have been here since 2008, who only left a handful of ratings. Or none at all. Some people on this site truly view this as a casual gaming site. They log on, take their turns, log off. They are too busy/ not bothered enough to rate anyone.

The rating system as we see it now is always going to be skewed. Doesn't matter if we change it to you're suggestion, keep it, or even 1-10. Some people rate all 1's, and some rate all 5's until they meet someone they really disliked.

TheForgivenOne wrote:Just because having a 4.5-4.9 is the norm now, does not mean it is broken.

The current system isn't broken, it just doesn't work. A major problem I see with the current system is that while it's easy to spot a bad player, how do you spot a particularly good player? Right now, there's no way to tell the difference between an average and above-average player.

I'm noticing a lot of misunderstanding (especially on your part, ForgivenOne). Under the proposed system the ratings will naturally stabilize around 0 or "average!" Maybe this will help:

Under the current system:

A rating-not-left is not counted. The only ratings that count are the ones that are actively left by other players after a match.

The ratings stabilize very high (4.5-4.9), since the only ratings that count are the ones actively left, and most players that actively rate consistently leave perfect ratings.

A player's ratings are practically useless. You can be identified as "bad" or "average," but really good players cannot be spotted.

Under the proposed system:

A rating-not-left is counted as a 0 or "average" rating. According to the system, all players receive a rating from all other players for every match. The act of not leaving a rating is actually the same as leaving an "average" rating.

The ratings stabilize around 0 or "average," since all ratings (including non-ratings) count. Most players do not leave ratings, thereby creating a situation where most ratings are 0 or "average."

A player's ratings will mean something (as they should). A positive rating means they are an above-average player, and a negative rating means they are a below-average player.

TheForgivenOne wrote:Once you migrate over to -2 - 2, as i said, you're just going to get a lot of people with 1.5-1.9.

False. The majority of players do not leave ratings, so the majority of ratings will be 0 or "average" if these non-ratings are counted. Thus, the average will stabilize around 0, since the only incentive people will have for leaving ratings is if the player was particularly good or particularly bad.

TheForgivenOne wrote:The rating system as we see it now is always going to be skewed.

That's why I proposed this new system, which will naturally correct the current skew.

TheForgivenOne wrote:Doesn't matter if we change it to you're suggestion, keep it, or even 1-10. Some people rate all 1's, and some rate all 5's until they meet someone they really disliked.

The people who consistently leave ratings after a match are in the minority. With the majority of people not leaving ratings, and those non-ratings counted as "average," this will correct the skew of that minority who don't know how to rate others properly.

TheForgivenOne wrote:Just because having a 4.5-4.9 is the norm now, does not mean it is broken.

Once you play here for a while, you will notice that people tend to be between 4.5-4.9, and anyone below that tends to be a poor player to play with. A lot of people find that, if the person played good enough, they get all 5's...

If 3 of 5 is defined as average but 4.5+ is the norm, how is that not broken?

If "good enough" deserves a set of perfect 5s, then those numbers cease having any value. A lot of people don't leave ratings because they see the entire system as completely defective.

I agree to the extent that its not so much the system, its the mentality of all 5's that for some reason is so prevalent here, but if ratings are truly distorted, there should either be an attempt to correct that, or to just eliminate it all together.

As it stands "ratings" carry virtually no value because they are skewed to the extreme, and if that is not a broken system, I'm not sure what is.

I also find it extremely disconcerting that the suggestion forum moderator, of all people, would be of the opinion that a system that is admittedly skewed and/or flawed, should be treated as a lost cause. As if its a waste of time trying to fix it and that it will always be broken, that it "doesn't matter" basically. That is a dangerous mentality that I pray does not extend beyond this issue.

But, I am sorry, if what is intended to be a five-point system has essentially become binary, it most certainly is broken.

TheForgivenOne wrote:So we are going to punish more people because some people decide not to rate? I don't think that's going to fly. Just because a person DOES NOT rate, does not mean they didn't enjoy the player.

This is the mentality that got me berated for giving an average rating. Being called anything but uberspecial is an insult to some. Its like those children's sports leagues where they don't keep score so everyone can be a winner. Simply not getting the gold star is seen as punishment.

I'm sorry, but most people, by definition, should have a score that is close to average. That is, in fact, what average means. But the current system has no middle ground, no gray area. One is either a L337 h4x0r or stupid noob, here. Is that really better than some be relegated to average status?

TheForgivenOne wrote:So we are going to punish more people because some people decide not to rate? I don't think that's going to fly. Just because a person DOES NOT rate, does not mean they didn't enjoy the player.

This is the mentality that got me berated for giving an average rating. Being called anything but uberspecial is an insult to some. Its like those children's sports leagues where they don't keep score so everyone can be a winner. Simply not getting the gold star is seen as punishment.

I'm sorry, but most people, by definition, should have a score that is close to average. That is, in fact, what average means. But the current system has no middle ground, no gray area. One is either a L337 h4x0r or stupid noob, here. Is that really better than some be relegated to average status?

The thing is, i don't get why we are Punishing people for NOT rating people. You gave someone a 3 star. What the TS is asking for, is if somebody does NOT rate anyone, their rating goes down. This new system is basically asking you to always rate people, or else it is basically like giving everyone average ratings. Suddenly people will be PMing you asking Why you didn't rate them. This rating system was brought in a long time ago.

And why not just change it so that if someone doesn't rate, they just get the 3 stars? Because you are just moving the numbers from 1-5, to -2 - 2. Which i find really pointless

TheForgivenOne wrote:The thing is, i don't get why we are Punishing people for NOT rating people. You gave someone a 3 star. What the TS is asking for, is if somebody does NOT rate anyone, their rating goes down. This new system is basically asking you to always rate people, or else it is basically like giving everyone average ratings. Suddenly people will be PMing you asking Why you didn't rate them. This rating system was brought in a long time ago.

If player A didn't leave player B a rating, either player A doesn't care about the rating system at all (in which case it doesn't matter to him what rating he gives), or player B didn't leave enough of an impression to leave a rating (in which case the average rating describes his play perfectly). In none of these cases are we actually punishing player A.

Nor are we punishing player B. He is still getting rated as average, which is not bad. Most players deserve average ratings. Yes, their rating goes down, but it goes to a point that more accurately reflects what it should be.

TheForgivenOne wrote:And why not just change it so that if someone doesn't rate, they just get the 3 stars? Because you are just moving the numbers from 1-5, to -2 - 2. Which i find really pointless

This, I agree with. There is no significant difference between a 1 to 5 and a -2 to 2 scale.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You can't suddenly decide to retroactively handle all times someone didn't leave a rating as them handing out a 3. There may be players who didn't leave a rating because they knew not leaving a rating wouldn't influence a players rating. If the system is changed, and suddenly not leaving a rating does influence a players rating, they are unable to change the fact that they didn't leave a rating.

If this is implemented, it should be from a certain point of time forwards. Which means that it will take a while for the effect to take place, and the ratings of older members will be skewed upwards.

TheForgivenOne wrote:...What the TS is asking for, is if somebody does NOT rate anyone, their rating goes down. This new system is basically asking you to always rate people, or else it is basically like giving everyone average ratings....

That's just it, average shouldn't be considered a downward movement, it should be the starting point. The way things are now, everyone is five-star until proven otherwise. I believe players should actually earn the rating they have instead of starting with a five and having every rating that isn't perfection essentially being a "punishment", like it is now.

If a player doesn't do something that would compel me to give a higher (or lower) rating, then they receive the default measurement.

I don't think anyone is going to quibble over whether it is -2+2, A-E, or different colours. What we have now is 1-5 in name only, it is really 4.5+, or not, which is what I find really pointless...

I am more than willing to concede that implementation is the messy part, I just think the current system needs messing up.

Last edited by bluwizard on Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

TFO I disagree on this one. The you're thinking of the rating system in its current iteration, which is where very close to 5 stars is average. If the ratings system was used properly then 3 stars would be the norm for most ppl. basically, this suggestion is coming up with a way to normalize the ratings, not punish anyone. if you get 0's because someone didn't rate you, its because they decided not to rate you, because you were average. I support this suggestion. But it would also become a nightmare to prove ratings abuse.XD

high score : 229402:59:29 ‹Khan22› wouldn't you love to have like 5 or 6 girls all giving you attention?10/11/2010 02:59:39 ‹TheForgivenOne› No.

TheForgivenOne wrote:The thing is, i don't get why we are Punishing people for NOT rating people. You gave someone a 3 star. What the TS is asking for, is if somebody does NOT rate anyone, their rating goes down. This new system is basically asking you to always rate people, or else it is basically like giving everyone average ratings. Suddenly people will be PMing you asking Why you didn't rate them. This rating system was brought in a long time ago.

I'll agree with Michel. The first problem is an incorrect assumption: that everyone will have a +1.9 rating, and a failure to leave a rating will lower that person's rating. Faulty logic, because that person could have a -1.9 rating and be helped by the lack of a rating. Second, if you fail to rate them, it means that either you are too lazy to respond, or you didn't see anything special about that player. The latter situation truly does mean you feel they are average. The former ought to be corrected, don't you think? On this site we encourage people to rate each other (e.g. the ratings medals). This will give an additional motivation - if no one rates each other, the ratings system will become meaningless. And if that's how it ends up, fine - but as it stands now, the rating system is also currently meaningless, so we didn't lose much.

no, casual gaming site, ratings aren't even a part of the game. People are NOT and SHOULD NOT be forced to rate in any way.

For example, I know I almost never rate 2 or 4 stars. I am just playing for fun, rating is not fun. I only rate if I feel very strongly about someone*, either positively or negatively, so they almost always get ones or fives

* I have mass rated 5's once or twice when waiting for a speed game to start, but that's just because I'm bored and medal hunting is the only thing available